Voters say no to 129 Parker St. development

Thursday

May 23, 2013 at 12:01 AMMay 23, 2013 at 11:21 PM

After three passionate hours of debate at special Town Meeting on May 19, residents overwhelmingly voted against approving zoning bylaw changes at 129 Parker St. The decision turned down a proposed large-scale shopping center and apartment complex at the 58-acre site.

Danielle McLean

After three passionate hours of debate at special Town Meeting on May 19, residents overwhelmingly voted against approving zoning bylaw changes at 129 Parker St. The decision turned down a proposed large-scale shopping center and apartment complex at the 58-acre site.

According to moderator Jim Colman, on Sunday, 725 of 989 residents voted against the zoning bylaw changes proposed by Southborough-based Capital Group Properties, well shy of the two-thirds majority vote needed for approval. Residents filled out ballots to vote, which were hand-counted by meeting officials.

Another article to approve the proposed development’s concept plan was withdrawn after the zoning changes failed.

“I think the project is too big,” said Finance Committee Chairman Peter Campbell who was asked by a resident why he did not give the development a favorable recommendation. “Doing this development doesn’t aid the downtown in anyway.”

In contrast, four of the five members of the Planning Board on May 15 had voted to recommend the project.

But uncertainty about the impact the development would have on the downtown was a major concern for some residents and brought some heated debate.

“I don’t deny doing this will effect the downtown… I think there is a lot of stuff in the downtown that is great,” said Selectman Brendon Chetwynd. Regardless of the vote, “We need to figure out the downtown is important to us and we will need to strengthen it.”

“The downtown is dead as far as I’m concerned,” said Council on Aging member Tom Papson who said he was in favor of the development. “What you are getting is really great… By bringing this to the town it will regenerate the downtown. Do you want to revive this town or do you want it to die?” The statement brought loud boos by many of the residents in attendance.

To sweeten the pot, the developer had promised to convert an existing building into a Community Life Center, including a new senior center. Some residents feared the town’s expense to maintain the building would be too high.

Many residents sought answers regarding the merits of mailings they received from Capital Group Properties over the past few weeks informing them a “no” vote could bring a big box store to the site.

About seven years ago, in an effort to attract development to the site, the town voted to make the industrial property a neighborhood business overlay district for residential and limited retail and commercial use. But since the site is an overlay district and was originally zoned an industrial site, developers have the option to follow the town’s industrial zoning bylaws, which are more flexible in the size and scope of its tenants. The industrial zoning option does not call for a special Town Meeting vote.

The town’s bylaws allow supermarkets to be built on the industrial site. The developers claim this would include big box stores that have supermarkets inside, such as a Walmart Supercenter.

When asked by voters whether this information was accurate, Maynard Building Commissioner Richard Asmann hedged. He said he was assessing the matter and would not have a determination until sometime next week. He gave no explanation as to why he did not have the information. “Supermarkets are allowed by right,” he said. But whether Wal-Mart is considered a supermarket, “I expect a decision will come next week.”

“We’re disappointed. We were hoping it would pass but we will have to look at other alternatives for that property,” said Capital Group Properties spokesman Bob Depietri after the decision. He said the development’s ownership group will meet within the next few weeks to discuss alternatives. “There are a number of different things we can do and in the next couple of weeks we will have some information on that.”

Most of the residents that spoke during the meeting were against the development or had some concerns. Some residents feared the 250 residential units that were proposed for the site would overcrowd the schools.

Maynard School Committee Chairman Amy Rebecca Gay said the committee looked at enrollment trends and space at the schools and stated the schools could accommodate the additional 20 to 30 students the development was estimated to bring.

Some residents were concerned about the increased traffic and pedestrian safety issues the development would cause. It was a concern raised in an independent peer review of the concept plan by the Edward J. Collins Center for Management at the University of Massachusetts-Boston.

Some residents worried the town’s water supply could not accommodate the development. The town’s water foreman Tim Mullally had stated prior to the meeting the town had more than enough water to accommodate the site. Still selectman Dawn Capello told voters the town would conduct an additional review during the site plan approval process.

Other residents were concerned the proposed development would have a negative impact on the surrounding wetlands and the area’s conservation land.

Note: An original version of the story indicated 726 of 900 residents voted against the zoning bylaw changes. The official count from the Maynard Clerks office is 725 of 989 voters.